MAC II Delivers Pass-Along Funds to Worldcon 76

The pass-along policy is a commitment to distribute at least one-half of a Worldcon’s surplus to the next three Worldcons that make the same promise.

Last year’s Worldcon, MidAmeriCon II, benefitted from that policy and now is paying it forward. They gave $33,000 to Worldcon 75 earlier, and in a ceremony at Helsinki turned over a like amount to Worldcon 76 chair Kevin Roche.

They also gave $5,000 of their surplus to the 2017 NASFiC.

“We plan to but haven’t given pass-along funds to Dublin yet,” says MAC II chair Ruth Lichtwardt. “We’re also assessing several requests from fan groups along with looking at other possible contributions, and will be determining distribution soon.”

9 thoughts on “MAC II Delivers Pass-Along Funds to Worldcon 76

  1. Mm-one of the topics of conv at Helsinki was the issue (and I’m open to correction here if wrong) that Worldcon/Magicon? has still not –after some years– closed its books and therefore no pass on funds (if any) have been made to the 2 Worldcons that followed it! If this is true, then SanJose 2018 and/or Dublin 2019 need to deal with this (post 2018/9) issue. best.

  2. Magicon was 1992; I would be surprised if its books were unclosed, and even more surprised if anything could be done if they weren’t. I also doubt that upcoming Worldcons will have the spoons to deal with a delinquent past Worldcon if there is one; this is the sort of thing that needs a committee of people who aren’t up to their asses in alligators.

  3. (fully parsing Dave’s) and if there is an issue, I don’t see that waiting for existing Worldcons to finish gains anything — or that a concluded Worldcon (which is exhausted by definition) is more effective than a separate group; it certainly doesn’t have any more overt power, and I doubt it would have more influence than an ad-hoc group.

    But the first thing to do is to find out whether the rumors have any truth.

  4. Magicon’s books are closed and their remaining funds went to to support its fan history work.

    We certainly received pass along from them in 1995. I have a vague memory that they may not have been ready to pass along money to the two preceding cons which existed because of 3 year bidding at the time until they didn’t need it and so those contributions got directly passed on to us but I’m not sure about this.

    The following is the only budget entry I could find which mentions this and is from Intersection’s budget submitted to the 1998 business meeting available at

    “Publications (Net of Magicon Pass-along) (37,589)”

    The Intersection budget was submitted in UK pounds.

  5. from the aforementioned link

    APPENDIX P – Magicon Financial Report

    Magicon, has prepared this final report for the Bucconeer WSFS BM since FANAC, the 501(c)3 organization which ran Magicon has contributed its entire remaining funds to the Fan History Project which can be seen at The activity for the past year is:

    $60889.92 Starting balance

    $2240.42 Interest earned

    $195.00 Dues paid

    $3448.08 Spent on Computer equipment and software, exhibit shipping, and misc. for Fan History project

    $300 Payment to SFSFS for use of copier

    $600 Donation to SF Oral History project $180 Payment for lawyer to service mark Magicon

    $58797.26 Balance at end of year.

    This entire balance has been committed to the Fan History project.

  6. Thanks to all re this. As far as I’m concerned the Magicon issue is now closed. But the on-going principle still applies: what if any future Worldcon is offered **and –this is the key– accepts (tho it can of course refuse such)** pass on funds from the usually two prev Worldcons, then when its time comes, it doesnt bother or downright refuses, what can WSFS do about that? Should there be an ongoing principle here applicable to all future to-be-voted-on Worldcons (we cant apply this to 2018 or 2019 but maybe could apply it to N-Zealand/2020 or DC/2012 et seq). If ye accept p/o funds, ye in turn should pass on as well. Obviously there are some past circumstances where that could not have happened -eh Nippon 2007 where –I believe– it made a loss so there couldnt have been any p/on funds done
    anyway! best.

  7. @Dave: the principle has existed from the beginning; in order to receive pass-on funds, a Worldcon has to pledge to pass on in its turn. (Note, however, that this traditionally covers 50% of net-after-reimbursements, rather than everything-after-reimbursements — let alone everything-after-bills-are-paid.) Enforcing this is … non-trivial. WSFS could of course pass a rule — but WSFS has (IMO sensibly) been disinclined to pass rules about issues not relating to the Big Three (site selection, Hugos, and the process of deciding about these); also, ISTM that WSFS has minimal (no?) enforcement powers. I think the strongest censure that can exist is the electorate’s voting down a future Worldcon for a defaulting site/concom — and how effective that is depends on how many people were energized rather than burned out by running a Worldcon. Personal honor (“we pledged to do this”) may be the most effective push.

    WSFS is particularly unempowered to chase down and cut off random fannish gossip….

Comments are closed.